The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

When Fadel Shalouf’s family went to pick up his body at the morgue the day after he was executed on a busy Gaza street corner, they found his hands still cuffed behind his back. Hamas, the militant faction that rules Gaza, did not provide a van to carry the body to burial, so the family laid him on two of his relative’s laps in the back of a sedan.

It was an undignified end to a short, shrouded life. Mr. Shalouf, his family insisted, was an illiterate fisherman with a knack for designing kites when he was arrested at 19 by Gaza’s internal security service. Yet he was convicted in a Hamas court in January 2011 of providing Israel with information that led to the 2006 assassination of Abu Attaya, commander of the Popular Resistance Committees.

During last month’s intense eight-day battle with Israel, the military wing of the Hamas government brutally and publicly put an end to Mr. Shalouf, 24, and six other suspected collaborators. The vigilante-style killings by masked gunmen — with one body dragged through a Gaza City neighborhood by motorcycle and another left for crowds to gawk over in a traffic circle — highlighted the pathetic plight of collaborators, pawns preyed on by both sides in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Fadel lived poor and died poor,” said his cousin Ahmed Shalouf, 28. “They left the bodies for a few hours in the streets, people spitting on them, throwing stones. They did not execute only Fadel. They executed all of us.”

The Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military arm, claimed responsibility for the killings.

In an interview four days after his death, Mr. Shalouf’s relatives said he had been abducted on Jan. 10, 2008, on his way to the sea in pursuit of sardines, sea bass and crabs. His father, Mussalam Shalouf, said he was summoned by the internal security service nine days later, and found Fadel, one of his 10 children, with broken fingers and burns from melted hoses having been dripped onto his skin, complaining that he had been hung from the ceiling by his ankles during interrogations.

Ahmed Shalouf, the cousin, said that far from aiding the enemy, Fadel had once helped the resistance by shuttling four fighters into Egyptian waters, violating Israel’s naval blockade on Gaza’s coast. He offered a photograph of Fadel on crutches around the time of the Abu Attaya killing as proof he was not involved.

“How can there be a collaborator who doesn’t have more than a SIM card? He can’t even write his name on the mobile,” Ahmed Shalouf said.

“If he was a collaborator, he would have built at least a room,” the cousin added, showing the former greenhouse strewed with debris where, he said, Fadel slept on a crude platform. “He would have bought a car. He would have bought clothes.”

“It’s like we are in a shed of cows, waiting their turn for slaughtering,” the elder Mr. Shalouf said. “After what happened with my sons, I hate all the people; I even hate myself.”

Mr. Shalouf’s mother stayed in the house, five simple rooms off a concrete courtyard adorned with a poster of Yasir Arafat. She was the last to visit him in prison, four days before the airstrikes began raining down; next time, he had asked, bring peanut stew.

The men could not bear to tell her of the handcuffed execution in the streets, so they said the prison had been hit by an Israeli bomb. “Like he’s a martyr,” her husband explained.

Nice folk those Hamas, yeah let's give them their own country, I mean it's not like they're anti-human-rights blood-thirsty savages who are bent on destroying the sovereign state next door, it's not like they've ever supported the bombing of school-buses and cafes amirite?

Mr. Shalouf’s mother stayed in the house, five simple rooms off a concrete courtyard adorned with a poster of Yasir Arafat.

Nice folk those Hamas, yeah let's give them their own country, I mean it's not like they're anti-human-rights blood-thirsty savages who are bent on destroying the sovereign state next door, it's not like they've ever supported the bombing of school-buses and cafes amirite?

I don't think anyone here is questioning that Hamas are terrorists. They are every bit as bad as the Stern gang, the IRA or ETA was. No one wants to give them a country. And I think by now that should have started to sink in among the Palestinians as well. Hamas has been ruthlessly persecuting and harassing Fatah members in Gaza. And I think that's probably what happened here too.

Not that "illitterate fisherman" isn't a great cover for a spy, but I doubt this guy was a collaborator. More like Hamas wanted to set some sort of example and have some scape goats to point fingers at, and why not lay the blame at those who support Fatah?

Living under the terror of Hamas rule, I think it would have been wise of his parents not to flaunt their support for Arafat.My bet is that that's what cost him his life.

I notice they are receiving a darn good finger-wagging for dat-dere from the civilized world.

I don't notice many cries of "war crime" from the civilized world however.

PEACE

No, name calling is seldom a great way to achieve change.Diplomats use more subtle reproaches, like summoning envoys from the country you consider at fault (France, UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Egypt, Finland have done this, and I expect more to follow) or recalling your own ambassador (rumours were floated that France and the UK considered this, but I doubt anyone, except perhaps some Arab country, actually will).

Here are some of the basic tenets:1) The settlements are a violation of the Geneva Convention, which Israel has signed and ratified:

The last para. of Article 49 of the Geneva Civilian Convention states: “The Occupying Power shall not … transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Further, “unlawful deportation or transfer” is listed in Article 147 as a “grave breach” of the Convention. Article 148 adds: “No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other … of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches refered to in the preceeding article.”

2)It is also a violation of the Rome Statute, which defines what constitutes war crimes (and which idiots on facebook refer to as protecting their copyright in a copy'n'paste chain mail letter making the rounds ), which Israel has signed, but not ratified.

Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute prohibits “[t]he transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” There are some difficult interpretive issues involved in the war crime, particularly concerning whether the settlers themselves violate the provision by settling in occupied territory. But the idea that (many of) the settlements constitute war crimes is anything but frivolous. Indeed, scholars agree that the inclusion of that part of Article 8(2)(b)(viii) in the Rome Statute was one of the primary reasons Israel refused (and still refuses) to ratify the treaty.

3) The question is then whether the Rome Statute applies to Israel as a non-signatory state.

The breach in question might indeed amount to a grave breach.Israel is of course not bound by the Rome Statute. However, the Rome State can be considered in many aspects as codifying customary law, which in turn is binding on Israel and the whole of the international community. Whether this specific provision of the Rome Statute is indeed codification of custom is open to debate.

So, basically, to sum it up; 1) violation of Geneva Convention? - check2) war crime as defined by the Rome Statute? - check3) Is Israel bound by the Rome Statute - open to debate

They are, however, bound by the Geneva convention, which is of course why Israeli courts on a fairly regular basis declare settlements illegal.

Last edited by Per on Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Per it's been nice to watch you back off from your original stance in this thread which was:

Per wrote:

ukcanuck wrote:Besides what would you call building settlements and encouraging immigration into occupied territory ?

A gross violation of the Geneva convention and a war crime.

You've gone from "gross violation" to "violation" and from "war crime" to "illegal".

As I said earlier, civilized folk tend to reserve the former terms for such things as executing POWs and targeting civilians.

Still the West Bank situation is a murky area international-law-wise due to the unusual fact these territories were not previously a legal part of a sovereign nation. The West bank was previously OCCUPIED by the nation of Jordan for 20 years (1948 - 67). If one views Israel's occupation of the West Bank illegal today, then one must also view Jordan's previous occupation as illegal.

Israel was not looking to take the West Bank from Jordan back in the day. As a matter of fact, Israel begged Jordan to stay out of the Six Day War, but Jordan obliged her arab neighbors and attacked West Jerusalem. The result was that Israel won the war and took control of the West Bank. Now what?? Give it back to Jordan? I don't think so! Let the "palestinians" govern themselves? No, the PLO was in control of the "palestinians" at the time and they were a terrorist group AT THE TIME. The PLO was bent on the destruction of Israel. Give a terrorist group their own nation and that nation is automatically a "rogue nation" amirite? Allow a rogue nation with one purpose (destroy you) to come into being right next door to you and commit suicide, amirite?

Anyway, yada, yada, yada, and here we are today.

As for Gaza, she's not occupied (no settlements) and Israel would gladly give her back to Egypt if Egypt would take her....

Strangelove wrote:Per it's been nice to watch you back off from your original stance in this thread which was:

Per wrote:

ukcanuck wrote:Besides what would you call building settlements and encouraging immigration into occupied territory ?

A gross violation of the Geneva convention and a war crime.

You've gone from "gross violation" to "violation" and from "war crime" to "illegal". :thumbs:As I said earlier, civilized folk tend to reserve the former terms for such things as executing POWs and targeting civilians.

Let’s not muddy the waters, shall we? Did you even read my last post? Here’s the summary:

Per wrote:So, basically, to sum it up;1) violation of Geneva Convention? - check2) war crime as defined by the Rome Statute? – check3) Is Israel bound by the Rome Statute - open to debate

They are, however, bound by the Geneva convention, which is of course why Israeli courts on a fairly regular basis declare settlements illegal.

So as you see, I still maintain that it checks out as a war crime. I later point out that Israeli courts on a number of occassions have declared settlements in the occupied territories illegal. I know this is a god-damned hockey talk message board, and we cannot be really sure of who anyone is IRL, but I assure you I am not an Israeli judge.

Easy on the margaritas there, doc.

Strangelove wrote:Still the West Bank situation is a murky area international-law-wise due to the unusual fact these territories were not previously a legal part of a sovereign nation. The West bank was previously OCCUPIED by the nation of Jordan for 20 years (1948 - 67). If one views Israel's occupation of the West Bank illegal today, then one must also view Jordan's previous occupation as illegal.Israel was not looking to take the West Bank from Jordan back in the day. As a matter of fact, Israel begged Jordan to stay out of the Six Day War, but Jordan obliged her arab neighbors and attacked West Jerusalem. The result was that Israel won the war and took control of the West Bank. Now what?? Give it back to Jordan? I don't think so! Let the "palestinians" govern themselves? No, the PLO was in control of the "palestinians" at the time and they were a terrorist group AT THE TIME. The PLO was bent on the destruction of Israel.

Let’s not muddy the waters, shall we?

Who claimed that an occupation is illegal?

Occupied territories are a natural consequence of a successful war, and are neither a breach of the Geneva Convention nor the Rome Statute. At least as long as you don't incorporate them into your own country.

Berlin was occupied by the Allied Powers (Soviet, USA, France and the UK) from the end of WWII up till the wall fell in 1989. The British, French and American zones are what constituted West Berlin. The Soviet controlled zone was incorporated with East Germany, but of course patrolled by Soviet military. Thus Berliners did not do military service in the German army, nor were they allowed to carry arms. An armed German in Berlin could technically be shot at sight by the Allied Soldiers. American military police would make routine controls in the discos back in the 1980’s. It was all slightly surreal, but I never heard anyone suggest it was in any way illegal. The German guys I knew were just happy it meant they got out of military service!

There are tons of issues surrounding occupation, of course. The 4th Geneva Convention (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/380 )is very specific about the duties of the occupying nation vis-a-vis the inhabitants of the occupied area. A number of those that Israel is frequently reported to violate would include:

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.…Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.…The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Now these acts are breaches of the Geneva Convention and/or war crimes.The occupation in itself is not.

Strangelove wrote:Give a terrorist group their own nation and that nation is automatically a "rogue nation" amirite?

Oh, come on, Doc, don’t be too hard on the Israelis. They’ve come a long way since Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were plotting assassinations and massacres and blowing up hotels and various British offices. http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htmSure, I find it a bit disheartening that murderers are elected to the highest office, but Israel today is, albeit flawed, the best democracy the Middle East can offer up, so we need to cut them some slack.I still have a hard time forgiving Likud their terrorist roots though, they’re basically to Israel what Sinn Fein is to Northern Ireland; the political branch of a terrorist organization.Thankfully it seems that both Lehi, Irgun and the IRA have stopped carrying out armed attacks.But I’m still not quite comfortable with them. I know what murderous thugs they really are.Thus I always prefer when Likud is not in government. Unfortunately, right now, they are.

Strangelove wrote:As for Gaza, she's not occupied (no settlements) and Israel would gladly give her back to Egypt if Egypt would take her....

Not a clearcut case. I hear people argue both sides. Typically the main criterion for occupying would be that you have effective control over the area.

I'm not really sure where you draw the line. The IDF has left Gaza, but control its borders, including its shores. Some have suggested that Gaza is neither autonomous nor occupied, but rather a gigantic prison camp.

Strangelove wrote:Per it's been nice to watch you back off from your original stance in this thread which was:

"A gross violation of the Geneva convention and a war crime."

You've gone from "gross violation" to "violation" and from "war crime" to "illegal". :thumbs:

Let’s not muddy the waters, shall we? Did you even read my last post?

*quotes previous post*

... I still maintain that it checks out as a war crime.

So you believe that "it" is not a gross violation of the Geneva Convention

... and yet is a "war crime"??

You keep referring to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

I believe the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defers to the Geneva Convention.

You seem to understand the settlements are not a "war crime" under the Geneva Convention.

But you don't seem to grasp that they are also not a "war crime" according to the International Criminal Court.

Now, you are free to speculate on whether or not the ICC might one day rule they are a "war crime".

But until that day comes (it never will, I think you know that) they are NOT... according to the ICC.

You mustn't neglect the all-important "COURT" part of the International Criminal Court!

Until a court rules y'see....

Per, you backed off on your "gross violation" stance, time to back off on your "war crime" stance altogether.

Besides, as you said:

Using the phrase 'war crime' in this case equates to 'name calling' and is neither diplomatic nor favourable.

You also said:

"As for the legality issue, why don't we leave it to the lawyers to fight it out?" and concluded it's "open to debate".

.... why then do you continue to call the settlements a "war crime"?

After all, one could lable every nation on Earth as "war criminals" by that definition

... if one wanted to open the history books amirite?

(and Lord knows the "palestinians" are guilty the most heinous of "war crimes").

Please stop trying to paint Israel as "the bad guys"!

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:Still the West Bank situation is a murky area international-law-wise due to the unusual fact these territories were not previously a legal part of a sovereign nation. The West bank was previously OCCUPIED by the nation of Jordan for 20 years (1948 - 67). If one views Israel's occupation of the West Bank illegal today, then one must also view Jordan's previous occupation as illegal.

Israel was not looking to take the West Bank from Jordan back in the day. As a matter of fact, Israel begged Jordan to stay out of the Six Day War, but Jordan obliged her arab neighbors and attacked West Jerusalem. The result was that Israel won the war and took control of the West Bank. Now what?? Give it back to Jordan? I don't think so! Let the "palestinians" govern themselves? No, the PLO was in control of the "palestinians" at the time and they were a terrorist group AT THE TIME. The PLO was bent on the destruction of Israel.

Let’s not muddy the waters, shall we?

Who claimed that an occupation is illegal?

Ummm YOU are the only one muddying the waters here old chum (and you went to great lengths to do so I might add!).

What Israel is doing in regards to WB settlements is less illegal than what Jordan did in regards to WB annexing

... then there's the fact the Jordanians kicked Jews outta the WB and burned down their synagogues...

... by the standards of International Law.

Anyway, the previous occupation by Jordan is a very relevant part of any Israel/West-Bank conversation.

As is the fact Jordan attacked Israel from their position in the West Bank.

To mention these things is NOT to "muddy the waters", just the opposite in fact...

Per wrote:Some have suggested that Gaza is neither autonomous nor occupied, but rather a gigantic prison camp.

Well those folk should not neglect to point the finger at the jailer to west: Egypt!

.

Last edited by Strangelove on Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:31 pm, edited 3 times in total.